Subscribe To

Search This Blog

Monday, January 28, 2013

IMBODY:
Obama ‘freedom to worship’ assaults First Amendment

Freedom of religion not
just for private expression

ByJonathan
Imbody

Monday, January 28, 2013

·

President Obama marked
Religious Freedom Day earlier this month by framing religious liberty as “the
freedom to worship as we choose.” If the president had not been restricting and
attacking religious freedom so egregiously, he might merit a pass for using
“freedom to worship” as poor shorthand for religious liberty.

The First Amendment of our
Constitution actually reads, “Congressshall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The
constitutionally guaranteed free exercise of religion in America extends well
beyond the freedom to worship. It includes the freedom to live out our conscientiously
held beliefs.

Worship at its core is
essentially a private and personal process, a communion between God and an
individual. No government could restrict such worship, any more than it could
monitor and censor every citizen’s thoughts and prayers. Even forbidding
individuals to worship together in public, which coercive communist governments
likeChina’s
have done, cannot actually prevent individuals from worshiping God in private.
So a law that merely protected the freedom to worship would hardly be worth
heralding in a presidential proclamation.

The free exercise of religion
under the American Constitution, by contrast, includes the freedom to openly
express, follow and live out our faith — not just in private but also in the
public square — without government coercion, censorship or any other form of
restriction.

The concept of religious
liberty held by the Constitution’s framers included not merely the freedom to
worship, but also the free exercise of conscience — carrying out one’s moral
beliefs with conviction and action.

AsThomas Jeffersonasserted, “[O]ur rules can have
authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The
rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable
for them to our God.”

James Madisonexpressed this understanding in his
original amendment to the Constitution: “The civil rights of none, shall be
abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national
religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be
in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.”

To be fair, Mr. Obama’s
statement eventually included a more expansive acknowledgement of religious
freedom: “Because of the protections guaranteed by our Constitution, each of us
has the right to practice our faith openly and as we choose.”

Yet the record will show that
the president’s gilded rhetoric belies tarnished policies. The prioritization
of the president’s first statement — that religious freedom means simply
freedom to worship — in fact parallels his policies. Those policies often
violate not only the general principles of the First Amendment, but also the
more specific Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which provides that
“Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” and
must take “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling
governmental interest.”

TheObama administrationhas taken several actions to restrict
or outright violate religious liberty. They have gutted the only federal
conscience regulation protecting the conscience rights of American health care
professionals.

Officials issued a coercive
contraception and sterilization mandate that imposes the president’s abortion
ideology on all employers, exempting virtually only places of worship. The
thousands of faith-based charities that actually exercise their faith and
conscience beyond the four walls of their churches now face millions of dollars
in fines by theObama administration.

Theadministrationhas argued before the Supreme Court in
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC against a
religious institution in an attempt to restrict faith-based organizations’
hiring rights. In a unanimous decision, even Mr. Obama’s own appointees to the
court rejected theadministration’s radical arguments to restrict
religious liberty.

TheObama administrationfailed for months to aggressively
advocate on behalf of Pastor Saeed Abedini, an American citizen imprisoned,
tortured and now on trial, facing possible execution by the Iranian government,
for simply living out and speaking about his Christian faith.

The first American Congress
enshrined religious liberty pre-eminently in the Bill of Rights. Many of those
leaders and their fellow patriots who ratified the First Amendment had risked
everything they owned and their very lives to win those freedoms. They also
recognized that threatening one group’s freedoms, by either restricting or
establishing a faith, threatens the freedoms of everyone.

Unless we act swiftly to
guard against current assaults on religious liberty — by reversing theadministration’s coercive policies through the
courts, by passing conscience-protecting laws inCongressand by re-educating the culture on
religious liberty — our First Amendment freedoms will become an empty
proclamation.

Jonathan Imbody is vice
president for government relations at the Christian Medical Association.

Friday, January 18, 2013

With federal courts issuing preliminary injunctions and over 40
lawsuits nationwide challenging the administration's contraceptives mandate for
bludgeoning religious freedom, one has wonder why President Obama took up the
fight.

The Obama campaign cleverly calculated that a battle over
contraceptives would energize their otherwise lethargic leftist base of single
women, abortion supporters and non-religious voters. The campaign actually
relished a battle with the Catholic Church and conservatives that they could
spin as a "war on women."

What war? Contraception remained legal, cheap and, by the
President's own testimony,
easily accessible to women. Meanwhile, conscience-driven small business owners
and nonprofit charities devoted to translating their faith into help for others
suddenly faced millions of dollars in fines for simply declining to pay for
pills that can end the life of a developing baby.

That such a cynical political ploy actually swayed a large number
of voters is evidence of both a waning commitment to First Amendment rights and
the power of simple emotional messages to mesmerize the masses. Americans need
to realize that failing to fight to protect the First Amendment rights of all
groups and basing our votes on propaganda rather than facts simply invites
government tyranny.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Apparently no longer concerned about "back-alley
clinics," ideology rather than safety considerations seem to drive the Washington Post's
opposition ("Virginia’s phony concern" editorial) to a new Virginia regulation that holds abortion clinics accountable
for health standards required of similar facilities.

In Pennsylvania, abortion activists had long exempted
abortion clinics from reasonable health and safety regulation and oversight. In
the absence of proper oversight, for years Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell
operated an abortion clinic where live babies were killed with concentration
camp inhumanity and women suffered and died in a filthy facility described as
"a bad gas station restroom."

It took women being killed and assaulted before Gosnell was
finally discovered and charged with eight counts of murder.

According to a Philadelphia District Attorney, Gosnell
"induced labor, forced the live birth of viable babies in the sixth,
seventh, eighth month of pregnancy and then killed those babies by cutting into
the back of the neck with scissors and severing their spinal cord."

Abortion advocates commonly contend that health and safety
regulations paralleling those used in other surgical facilities would shut down
their clinics. What does that tell you about the level of safety women
encounter in abortion clinics?

Received $542 million in taxpayer funding, which equals 44 percent of Planned Parenthood’s annual revenue.

Performed 333,964 abortions. Their previous annual reporters show that the organization performed 329,445 abortions in 2010 and 332,278 abortions in 2009, bringing the total number of abortions in three years to nearly 1 million abortions.

Reported $87.4 million in excess revenue, and more than $1.2 billion in net assets.

For more detail, read the fact sheet developed by the Susan B. Anthony List.

On Jan. 4, 2013, pro-life U.S. Representatives re-introduced the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act. This bill ensures that Title X family planning grants are used for their intended purpose and are prohibited from being used by organizations that provide abortions.

Friday, January 4, 2013

The odds of pro-life, faith-based representatives attending
separate meetings with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Health and Human
Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in the same day--and actually agreeing on
something-- may seem astronomical.

Yet that's exactly what happened on the recent World AIDS Day,
when I joined several other faith-based organization representatives to attend
meetings at the White House and at the State Department that included
presentations by both women on one of the very few goals we share in
common--ending AIDS.

The reasons that political opponents with such vastly divergent
worldviews even landed in the same room together are simple and pragmatic. In
places like sub-Saharan Africa, a World Health Organization survey found
that faith-based organizations provide up to 70 percent of the health
care, and a Gallup survey
of 19 countries in this region found that Africans trust religious institutions
the most.

That means no government can achieve its AIDS-related health
goals in such countries without engaging the faith community.

Key officials in the Obama administration have been quietly
reaching out to a number of faith-based groups working with AIDS patients
overseas. We have enjoyed candid and civil discussions with administration
officials including Ambassador Goosby, Global Health Initiative Executive
Director Lois Quam, and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
Administrator Rajiv Shah, abo­­ut how to join together to combat AIDS and how
religious liberty and conscience rights impact faith-based health care. Such
conversations recently resulted in the development of a new written USAID policy
to help protect conscience rights to insure competition without discrimination
for government funding for AIDS projects.

I have explained during these conversations that faith-based
professionals and institutions cannot separate the faith motivation that
compels them to make incredible sacrifices to care for the needy and
marginalized from the faith motivation that compels them to provide care
according to biblical and Church standards. Evangelical and Catholic groups
provide significant and compassionate care to AIDS patients in the U.S. and
overseas, and the government can multiply the benefits of those efforts with
grants to help achieve worldwide health goals such as the new blueprint for an
AIDS-free generation.

Such efforts may come as a surprise to some AIDS activists and
LGBT individuals who view the faith community as an adversary rather than as a
partner. Some of this wariness may be warranted, of course, if an individual
has experienced judgment or stigma from someone within the faith community.

Yet negative perceptions about the faith community can also arise
from the same kind of stereotyping and misinformation that AIDS activists and
LGBT individuals themselves fight to counter. Automatically labeling as homophobic
anyone who holds faith-based or traditional values regarding sex and marriage
is like labeling anyone who opposes human cloning as technophobic. It is
entirely possible to deem certain actions morally or ethically
impermissible--as we all do--and still accept, serve and love individuals who
engage in these actions.

As our society becomes more sharply divided on social issues, we
all need to embrace more civil dialogue. Otherwise, our democracy will morph
into a form of totalitarianism, with whoever has political power eliminating
all opposition by fiat. Given our history and current trends, the faith
community should be among the first to recognize and resist such threats to
freedom and tolerance.

We all share the same human frailties and harmful inclinations,
and we will each answer individually to our God. Meanwhile, we can accentuate
our commonalities, engage each other respectfully on our differences and work
hard to find those areas in which we can work together.

Laboring together for an AIDS-free generation is a good starting
point.

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Over the years I've been privileged to work with government agency officials to stem the tide of human trafficking, or modern-day slavery. Here's a notice from the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) that reminds us to be vigilant and ready to speak out to help rescue and protect victims:

Human trafficking is one
of the most heinous crimes that DHS investigates. In its worst manifestation,
human trafficking is akin to modern-day slavery. It is through the hard work
and dedication of stakeholders like you, that we are able to increase public
awareness, support victims, investigate cases and bring traffickers to justice.

As you travel this holiday
season, be alert and aware of the indicators concerning a potential victim of
human trafficking. Human trafficking is often “hidden in plain sight.” Victims
may be afraid to come forward and get help; they may be forced or coerced
through threats or violence; they may fear retribution from traffickers, including
danger to their families; and they may not be in possession or have control of
their identification documents. Recognizing the signs is the first step in
identifying victims of human trafficking.

DHS relies on tips to dismantle
these organizations. Report suspicious human trafficking activity to the ICE
HSI Tip Line at 1-866-347-2423 or report tips online at www.ice.gov/tips.

Call the National Human
Trafficking Resource Center (NHTRC) at 1-888-3737-888 to get help or connect
with a service provider in your area. The NHTRC is not a law enforcement or
immigration authority and is operated by a nongovernmental organization.

Pay attention to your
surroundings as you travel this holiday season. Thank you for your continued
efforts to combat human trafficking. To learn more about human trafficking, how
to identify victims, and report suspected cases of human trafficking, please
visit www.dhs.gov/bluecampaign.

Two science apologists put lipstick on a pig in a USA Todaycommentary,
"Does science have honesty problem?" They assure us that
concerns about the documented recent rise in scientific fraud are overblown and that we can trust the scientific community to monitor itself.

Conspicuously absent from the commentary is a monumental
scientific fraud case uncovered
in 2010, after the journal Science published the false claim of renowned
scientist Dr. Hwang Woo Suk to have created human embryonic stem cells matched
to patients. The claim conveniently corroborated prevailing dogma within the
scientific community and the relentless lobbying of grant-seeking researchers
hyping the supposedly miraculous healing power of human embryonic stem cells.

The cacophony of claims for cures from this embryo-destructive
form of stem cell research led gullible politicians to foolishly fast-track
embryonic stem cell research funding. The hype tragically diverted funding away
from research on stem cells derived from sources that avoid the destruction of
human embryos--research already proven effective in producing cures and
therapies for myriad diseases.

Embryonic stem cell researchers already rich from government
grants and scientific journal editors who fueled the fire of embryonic stem
cell research hype hardly will self-report their own fraud. Self-monitoring alone
simply cannot withstand substantial financial and peer pressures. We need to
bolster our defense against scientific fraud with a wary and probing public,
more thorough media investigations and nonpartisan watchdogs who sniff out and
follow the money trail.